Of course. It is definitely some conspiracy with 5G, but not one they try to push.
If so, what are they?
Shortly: 5G main official advantage over 4G is higher bandwidth and more clients for one BS. But significantly higher bandwidth you could get only in Frequesncy Range 2 (27GHz and 38GHz bands). But that bands barely works inside buildings, not even talking about outside - they are easily muted even by rain or fog. And even inside you need antennas in sight of each other to get some Gbit speeds. So, in reality, 5G gives slightly wider bandwidth and more clients for Base Station.
And now the most interesting thing - Base Station is definitely not the endpoint of your high bandwidth connection. You need thick fiber channels from BS - uplinks to some backbone. But nobody upgrade that uplinks. And that uplinks are the bottleneck of cellular networks.
4G hardly utilise 30% of it's possible capacity because uplinks can't provide necessary bandwidth. Even in towns. Situation in suburban and rural areas much worse, because even 1Gb radiolink is often a luxury for rural base station. And nobody want to bury fiber under all that fields and forests. So, 1000 clients who have 1Gb connection to base station will fight for that 1Gb uplink with all consequences. Changing 4G to 5G gives nothing in terms of real bandwith and number of clients.
So the question is - why they need 5G, when they can't even utilize 4G?
They often tell us about IoT crap in connection with 5G. Here the larger number of clients will be a significant advantage. But more spying devices will need much more bandwidth. So, all IoT traffic should be terminated on the base station. And here comes my theory - they will collect all surveillance from 5G IoT devices right on the BS. When they will need an info about you they will just downloand only data recorded from your devices using that narrow uplink.
So, 5G is a prerequisite for total surveillance network with local storage of all raw surveillance on BS with access to it provided to agencies and businesses.
Pretty logical scheme - you turn every base station into local network storage without any need to buld giant datacenters and upgrading uplinks and backbone. 4G base stations don't have large enough storages, and have lower maximum number of clients. So, add 5G modules to the base stations, and you get state wide surveillance storage that could hold data on every single person who use any smartphone, IoT device or use cellular network for internet access.
That concerns about creation of country-wide distributed storage surveillance network with enormous capacity was rised in the early days of 5G rollout. "What the fuck, we can't even utilize 4G, why roll out 5G instead of upgrading all BS uplinks?" Even Apple founder (real one) Stieven Wozniak rised that concern at the time, but all that was quickly buried under the insane "5G health issues" storm.
Hardly today any questions about 5G will be heard and answered.
5G allows for more devices connected at the same time in a cell and more efficient usage of the available bandwidth.
For an ISP that's nice as they can service more people with less equipment at the cost of more power usage as the technology needs to mature.
For the end user things might respond a bit better but batteries will go down faster.
little spy crap will not be running 5g in the foreseeable future as it's just to compute and power intensive.
Big spy stuff like CCTV can be run on 4G and other networks on government frequencies.
Basically it's an over blown slight upgrade over existing technology
You can't use all available bandwidth of 4G and often even 3G, because bandwidth is limited not by bandwidth of mobile - base station link, but by base station - internet link.
For an ISP that's nice as they can service more people with less equipment
They can't. Because the bottleneck is between base station and internet, not between mobile and BS. People don't need faster connetion to BS, they need faster connection to internet.
little spy crap will not be running 5g in the foreseeable future
Nearly everybody have spy crap in pocket. Powerful enough crap. But you can't stream all data continously from that devices, first - bottleneck from BS to server and second - power consumption. 5G with local storage and lower power consumtion solves that surveillance problem perfectly.
Basically it's an over blown slight upgrade over existing technology.
Senseless for customer upgrade. Customer will prefer more base stations with thick fiber uplinks, not adding 5G modules to base stations without any upgrade of infrastructure.
So the threat is surveillance not physical health?
I think so. 4g network as it was build do not allow streaming sirveillance video/audio/data and storing it. Upgrading BS uplinks and building giant datacenters is insanely expensive, you need a fiber to every single BS and huge upgrade of backbone to withstand all that new datastreams to datacenters. Adding distributed storage to BS and enhancing client capacity with 5G looks like best solution. And all payments could be placed on clients through buying new devices and dataplans.
From the health view 5G is not different from 4G. Difference only in modulation, basically, all other parameters are the same, including frequencies and TX power. So, those who are very concerned about 5G health issues but somehow don't care about 3G/4G are definitely doing something suspicious.
Of course. It is definitely some conspiracy with 5G, but not one they try to push.
Shortly: 5G main official advantage over 4G is higher bandwidth and more clients for one BS. But significantly higher bandwidth you could get only in Frequesncy Range 2 (27GHz and 38GHz bands). But that bands barely works inside buildings, not even talking about outside - they are easily muted even by rain or fog. And even inside you need antennas in sight of each other to get some Gbit speeds. So, in reality, 5G gives slightly wider bandwidth and more clients for Base Station.
And now the most interesting thing - Base Station is definitely not the endpoint of your high bandwidth connection. You need thick fiber channels from BS - uplinks to some backbone. But nobody upgrade that uplinks. And that uplinks are the bottleneck of cellular networks.
4G hardly utilise 30% of it's possible capacity because uplinks can't provide necessary bandwidth. Even in towns. Situation in suburban and rural areas much worse, because even 1Gb radiolink is often a luxury for rural base station. And nobody want to bury fiber under all that fields and forests. So, 1000 clients who have 1Gb connection to base station will fight for that 1Gb uplink with all consequences. Changing 4G to 5G gives nothing in terms of real bandwith and number of clients.
So the question is - why they need 5G, when they can't even utilize 4G?
They often tell us about IoT crap in connection with 5G. Here the larger number of clients will be a significant advantage. But more spying devices will need much more bandwidth. So, all IoT traffic should be terminated on the base station. And here comes my theory - they will collect all surveillance from 5G IoT devices right on the BS. When they will need an info about you they will just downloand only data recorded from your devices using that narrow uplink.
So, 5G is a prerequisite for total surveillance network with local storage of all raw surveillance on BS with access to it provided to agencies and businesses.
Pretty logical scheme - you turn every base station into local network storage without any need to buld giant datacenters and upgrading uplinks and backbone. 4G base stations don't have large enough storages, and have lower maximum number of clients. So, add 5G modules to the base stations, and you get state wide surveillance storage that could hold data on every single person who use any smartphone, IoT device or use cellular network for internet access.
That concerns about creation of country-wide distributed storage surveillance network with enormous capacity was rised in the early days of 5G rollout. "What the fuck, we can't even utilize 4G, why roll out 5G instead of upgrading all BS uplinks?" Even Apple founder (real one) Stieven Wozniak rised that concern at the time, but all that was quickly buried under the insane "5G health issues" storm.
Hardly today any questions about 5G will be heard and answered.
5G allows for more devices connected at the same time in a cell and more efficient usage of the available bandwidth.
For an ISP that's nice as they can service more people with less equipment at the cost of more power usage as the technology needs to mature. For the end user things might respond a bit better but batteries will go down faster.
little spy crap will not be running 5g in the foreseeable future as it's just to compute and power intensive. Big spy stuff like CCTV can be run on 4G and other networks on government frequencies.
Basically it's an over blown slight upgrade over existing technology
You can't use all available bandwidth of 4G and often even 3G, because bandwidth is limited not by bandwidth of mobile - base station link, but by base station - internet link.
They can't. Because the bottleneck is between base station and internet, not between mobile and BS. People don't need faster connetion to BS, they need faster connection to internet.
Nearly everybody have spy crap in pocket. Powerful enough crap. But you can't stream all data continously from that devices, first - bottleneck from BS to server and second - power consumption. 5G with local storage and lower power consumtion solves that surveillance problem perfectly.
Senseless for customer upgrade. Customer will prefer more base stations with thick fiber uplinks, not adding 5G modules to base stations without any upgrade of infrastructure.
I think so. 4g network as it was build do not allow streaming sirveillance video/audio/data and storing it. Upgrading BS uplinks and building giant datacenters is insanely expensive, you need a fiber to every single BS and huge upgrade of backbone to withstand all that new datastreams to datacenters. Adding distributed storage to BS and enhancing client capacity with 5G looks like best solution. And all payments could be placed on clients through buying new devices and dataplans.
From the health view 5G is not different from 4G. Difference only in modulation, basically, all other parameters are the same, including frequencies and TX power. So, those who are very concerned about 5G health issues but somehow don't care about 3G/4G are definitely doing something suspicious.